Litigation Trends 2025

LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 63 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C M P S & Others v Shell PLC and The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1500) that, because of the claimants’ inability to link particular areas of damage to over 100 individual oil spills, the claims should be treated as a “Global Claim,” which would have meant that the claimants needed to prove that Shell was entirely responsible for the pollution that has impacted their environment. Instead, the Court held that the case instead be tried through the selection of lead cases. Accordingly, in February 2025, the High Court in London commenced the preliminary issues hearing in this case, which centres on issues of Nigerian law, including whether a claim can be brought against a private company for oil pollution under Nigeria’s constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. While Shell’s successful appeal in the Netherlands and its board of directors’ success in England may appear as a setback for environmental litigants, it does not signify the end of climaterelated lawsuits against corporations, as demonstrated by the ongoing case being brought by Nigerian communities against Shell in England. These legal proceedings underscore the evolving nature of climate litigation, where courts must navigate scientific uncertainty, jurisdictional challenges, and the limits of existing legal frameworks. In the United States, a Southern District of New York judge issued a noteworthy decision regarding “carbon neutral” claims on Evian bottled water. Danone, the makers of Evian, had been sued by consumers who alleged that the “carbon neutral” labels misled them to believe that the product’s manufacturing did not produce CO2 or otherwise cause pollution. In January 2024, the court denied a motion to dismiss on the ground that “carbon neutral” was a technical and scientific term that would be easily misunderstood by consumers and that it was premature to determine that a reasonable consumer could not be misled. But in November 2024, upon reconsideration, the court reversed its view and dismissed the case. The court explained that reasonable consumers would be expected to look beyond the front label to understand the “carbon neutral” representation and thus would have seen the back label and website disclosures that explained what Evian meant by “carbon neutral.” The court also believed that the front label statement that the water was “sourced from the French Alps” would be a context clue for reasonable consumers that the products could not be “carbon zero,” and added that there is no such thing as a “carbon zero” product. With those considerations in mind, the court determined it was not plausible that consumers could be misled by the “carbon neutral” statement and dismissed the claim. Aspirational Goals in the Crosshairs While decisions in prior years have sometimes suggested that forwardlooking or aspirational statements may face reduced risk from consumer deception claims, some significant decisions in 2024 made clear that aspirational sustainability goals and broad statements about corporate commitments are not exempt from scrutiny. The DC Court of Appeals decision in Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co. was one significant example. Environmental NGO Earth Island had challenged Coke’s statements about its sustainability goals and commitments as misrepresentations based on Coke’s continued production of products in single-use plastic packaging. The trial court dismissed the case at the pleading stage, finding that, as a matter of law, the forwardlooking statements could not be deceptive because they were aspirational in nature. But DC’s highest court reversed the decision dismissing the claims and allowed them to proceed to discovery. Earth Island will now have the opportunity to prove in discovery that its allegations are accurate. On the other hand, a decision from the CROSS-PRACTICE FOCUS Environmental, Social & Governance 62 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==